1. Field of the Invention
This invention relates to anti theft shopping cart to prevent the loss of shopping carts from shopping stores. The device disables the front wheels, and the use of simple, inexpensive metal protrusions prevents the cart from being tilted, or pushed off the parking lot once the wheels disable.
2. Description of Related Art
Grocery stores and markets commonly supply consumers with shopping carts for holding and carrying merchandise in and out of the stores. In order to form an understanding of the invention, it is to be noted that shopping carts have a wheel supporting frame which supports a basket, and are utilized around the world at supermarkets and stores.
Generally, once a shopping cart is emptied by the customer, the customer rolls the cart to the side of their car and drives away. Thereafter an employee collects the discarded shopping cart and rolls it back to the market.
During the course of evaluating this invention it has been found that large numbers of customers roll the carts off the premises of the shopping center, never to be returned to the market. In addition, to customers who remove the shopping carts from the shopping center, children remove the carts for use as toys, the carts are also stolen by organized groups who then resell the stolen carts to the stores.
Shopping carts are relatively expensive, costing from $30 to $50 each. The theft of a certain percentage of carts from markets causes markets to keep excess shopping carts on hand in order to insure an adequate number of carts for the customers of these markets and stores.
Obviously, if a theft proof shopping cart could be developed at a reasonable cost, losses incurred from the loss of shopping carts could be reduced, and the money saved could be passed on to the consumer in the form of lower merchandise costs.
In response to the obvious need for a theft proof cart, several inventors have created several types of anti-theft devices for shopping carts. U.S. Pat. No. 3,717,225 to Rashbaum (1973) discloses a piston rod and wheel lock device. This device includes a frame mounted actuator that locks one of the wheels of the cart. It does not eliminate the potential for the use of one bank of cart wheels rotating by lifting the disabled wheel from the contact with the ground. U.S. Pat. No. 5,315,290 to Moreno (1994) discloses an electronic wheel lock device. This device also fails to eliminate the possibility of leaning the cart to the side of the still active wheels.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,242,668 to Herzog (1980) discloses a collapsible sub frame causing the wheels to swing out of operative position. This device immobilizes the front wheels of the cart, but does not eliminant the possibility the cart can be leaned back, and rolled away using the rear wheels of the cart. U.S. Pat. No. 5,357,182 (1994) discloses a braked wheel device. This device also fails to eliminate the possibility of leaning the cart to the side of the still active wheels once the cart has left the boundary of the parking lot.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,524,985 (1985) discloses an arrest device for a wheeled cart. This device relies on a hooking device in the parking lot, but does not appear to eliminate the possibility that the cart could be leaned to avoid the hooking device. U.S. Pat. No. 5,576,691 (1996) discloses another form of a wheel locking device. This device also fails to eliminate the removal of the cart by simply tipping the cart on to the back wheels and rolling the cart away.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,577,880 to Bianco (1986) discloses still another form of a wheel locking device. This device also fails to eliminate the removal of the cart by simply tipping the cart on to the back wheels and rolling the cart away. U.S. Pat. No. 4,772,880 to Goldstein (1988) discloses another form of wheel locking device, disabling only one of the front wheels.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,194,844 to Zelda (1993) discloses a proximity wheel locking mechanism. This device also fails to eliminate the removal of the cart by simply tipping the cart on to the back wheels and rolling the cart away. U.S. Pat. No. 4,591,175 to Upton (1986) discloses a magnetic wheel locking mechanism. This device also fails to eliminate the removal of the cart by simply tipping the cart on to the back wheels and rolling the cart away.
The wheel locking devices of the prior art used as identified work to disable only one wheel of the shopping cart. Since the shopping cart consists of four wheels, the disabling of one wheel would be insufficient to completely immobilize the cart. Several stores have discovered even if one wheel is disabled the person removing the cart will continue to push the cart with sufficient force to override the traction of the locked wheel.
The Herzon device disables the entire front wheel assembly by allowing the sub frames of the cart to collapse around the front wheel. This device does not eliminate the possibility of leaning the cart back and rolling it away on its rear wheels.
All of the devices heretofore known suffer from a number of disadvantages:
(a) The manufacture of small electronic devices inside a shopping wheel requires an extensive manufacturing process for the wheel hub. Such a facility, which is needed to install electronic sensors and locking mechanisms in a shopping cart wheel will result in longer manufacturing process, and increased manufacturing costs so as to make the shopping cart equipped with a wheel locking device prohibitively expensive.
(b) None of the devices heretofore known totally disable the cart. If one wheel is locked a person intent on removing the cart from the premises can exert enough force to overcome the friction of the locked wheel.
(c) None of the devices heretofore known can prevent all the wheels of the cart from being disabled, and to do so would be prohibitively expensive. If only one wheel is disabled, the cart can still be maneuvered by tilting the cart so that it can still be rolled away.